get_udt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies read-only via the word "Get" and notes that member details are included; it says nothing about whether the .l5x must be pre-loaded via `load_project`, file-access constraints, or size/performance characteristics of returning all UDTs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two lines of prose plus two parameter lines — lean and front-loaded with the action. The docstring-style "Args:" block is a mild stylistic artifact but wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and both parameters are covered. What is missing is the boundary against `get_udts` and any note on how `l5x_path` relates to the `load_project` sibling — exactly the context an agent needs before invoking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document both parameters: `l5x_path` as a path to a .l5x file and `udt_name` with the non-obvious empty-string semantics (returns all UDTs). It does not clarify the expected path form (absolute vs relative) or whether the file must already be loaded.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb+resource ("Get UDT definition(s) with member details") is stated, but the plural "definition(s)" collides directly with the sibling `get_udts`, which appears to be the list-all variant. Nothing in the description lets an agent tell which of the two to call for which case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as `get_udts`. The only conditional given ("If empty, returns all UDTs") is parameter behavior, not tool-selection guidance, and it arguably makes this tool overlap with its sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.